United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM E. CASSADY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
brings this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g)
and 1383(c)(3), seeking judicial review of a final decision
of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his claims for
a period of disability, disability insurance benefits, and
supplemental security income. The parties have consented to
the exercise of jurisdiction by the Magistrate Judge,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), for all proceedings in
this Court. (Docs. 27 & 28 (“In accordance with
provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73, the
parties in this case consent to have a United States
magistrate judge conduct any and all proceedings in this
case, . . . order the entry of a final judgment, and conduct
all post-judgment proceedings.”)). Upon consideration
of the administrative record, Plaintiff's brief, the
Commissioner's brief, and the arguments of counsel at the
September 19, 2018 hearing before the Court, it is determined
that the Commissioner's decision denying benefits should
be reversed and remanded for further proceedings not
inconsistent with this decision.
filed applications for a period of disability, disability
insurance benefits, and supplemental security income on or
about August 5, 2014, alleging disability beginning on July
3, 2014. (See Tr. 197-209.) Campbell's claims
were initially denied on January 5, 2015 (Tr. 138-39; see
also Tr. 140-46) and, following Plaintiff's January
22, 2015 written request for a hearing before an
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) (see
Tr. 149-50), a hearing was conducted before an ALJ on June 8,
2016 (Tr. 180-98). On September 15, 2016, the ALJ issued a
decision finding that the claimant was not disabled and,
therefore, not entitled to a period of disability, disability
insurance benefits, or supplemental security income. (Tr.
62-73.) More specifically, the ALJ proceeded to the fifth
step of the five-step sequential evaluation process and
determined that Campbell retains the residual functional
capacity to perform medium work and, more specifically, those
light jobs identified by the vocational expert
(“VE”) during the administrative hearing
(compare Id. at 67-73 with Tr. 94-95). On
November 14, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed the ALJ's
unfavorable decision to the Appeals Council (Tr. 195); the
Appeals Council denied Campbell's request for review on
August 8, 2017 (Tr. 1-4). Thus, the hearing decision became
the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security.
alleges disability due to diabetes mellitus with associated
complications, peripheral neuropathy, proteinuria, stroke
syndrome, and hypertension. The ALJ made the following
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments:
diabetes with proteinuria, neuropathy, hypertension, obesity,
and history of cerebrovascular accident with right
hemi-sensory loss (20 CFR 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c)).
. . .
4. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of
one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P,
Appendix 1 (20 CFR 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526,
416.920(d), 416.925 and 416.926).
. . .
5. After careful consideration of the entire record, the
undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual
functional capacity to perform a medium work as defined in 20
CFR 404.1567(c) and 416.967(c) except he would be able to
stand two hours at a time or two hours total in an eight-hour
workday, and walk two hours at a time or two hours total in
an eight-hour workday. He would never be able to climb
ladders, ropes or scaffolds. He would be able to occasionally
climb ramps and stairs as well as occasionally balance,
stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl. He would be able to perform
frequent operation of foot controls and could tolerate
occasional exposure to unprotected heights, moving mechanical
parts, dust, fumes, odors, gases, extreme heat, and extreme
cold. He could tolerate frequent exposure to humidity,
wetness, and vibration, and could frequently operate motor
. . . . . .
6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work
(20 CFR 404.1565 and 416.965).
. . .
7. The claimant was born on November 14, 1979 and was 34
years old, which is defined as a younger individual age
18-49, on the alleged disability onset ...